Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
12. After entry of the Amendment, the application claims were 1-13.
13. In the Amendment, Appellant presented extensive argument with
respect to the patentability of amended claim 1.
14. Appellant arguments (see below) addressed at least the following
seven limitations of Appellant’s amended claim 1:
(1) A supporting device moving jointly about first and second axes;
(2) The support device having a longitudinal axis;
(3) The first and second axes are transverse to the longitudinal axis; and
(4) The first and second axes are transverse to each other;
(5) Simultaneously selectively clamping and releasing said support device
about the first and second axes;
(6) The support device is fixed from rotation about its longitudinal axis.
(7) Simultaneously selectively clamping and releasing the supporting
device and a mounting device.
Limitations (2), (3), (5), and (6), were added by the Amendment. Limitations (1),
(4), and (7), are found in the originally filed claim 1.
15. In the Amendment at page 3, Appellant argued the following as to the
amended claims:
Because Klevstad does not teach an actuator that
simultaneously selectively clamps and releases to enable a support
device to move jointly about a first and second axes that are transverse
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013